Judge lifts ban on spraying for moth

A Monterey County judge Friday lifted his temporary ban on controversial aerial spraying for a destructive moth, concluding that the spray does not contain a potentially harmful ingredient and that the state has a solid plan to investigate health complaints that might come up.

After the first round of spraying for the light brown apple moth over the Monterey peninsula last month, more than 100 people complained of symptoms that included sore throats, rashes and headaches. However, no definitive link was established between the illnesses and the spray -- a pheromone preparation called Checkmate that disrupts the moths’ mating cycles.

The moth, which attacks crops in Australia and elsewhere, was first spotted in the United States last year by a retired UC Berkeley entomology professor checking his backyard traps. Spraying will resume for three nights starting Wednesday on the Monterey Peninsula and is planned for Nov. 4-9 over parts of Santa Cruz County.

At a hearing Thursday, an analysis by a chemist for the state Department of Food and Agriculture showed that the Checkmate compound contains no polymethylene polyphenyl isocyanate, a chemical that has been linked to asthma in spray-painters. Last week, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell halted the spraying because he wanted more information on the substance, which the federal Environmental Protection Agency later said it had erroneously listed as one of Checkmate’s active ingredients.

O’Farrell also heard from officials who outlined procedures that will be followed by state agencies when a resident in the spray area gets sick.

“These are exactly the kind of reassurances the community needs,” said Jay Van Rein, a spokesman for the Food and Agriculture Department.

Not so, said Alexander Henson, an attorney for Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment, which sued to stop the spraying.

“From Day 1, the state said it had a plan,” he said. “But residents would call with their complaints, and the people answering the phone didn’t know what to do with them. They didn’t have a form for it.”

Henson criticized the state, the EPA and Suterra, Checkmate’s Oregon-based manufacturer, for citing “trade secrets” and refusing to fully disclose the spray’s ingredients.

“Under the circumstances, meeting our burden was impossible,” he said. “We had to show that this material, whose ingredients we don’t know, is harmful to humans -- and it’s never been tested on humans.”

steve.chawkins@latimes.com